Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Sorry guys, for my bad knowledge of the English language. Maybe someone can help me.
If a technique is not 'reliable', how can it be 'effective' ?

Best regards Dirk

The question isn't "how reliable", but rather "how reliant". In other words, how much does aikido rely on committed attacks to be effective? If an aikidoka is not given a committed attack, can he still execute effective aikido?

There are variables and definitions at play here that need to be further expounded upon in order to make the question a valid one. Such as what constitutes a "committed attack" and how would one define "physically effective". The other variable that is not addressed is the skill level of the person applying the aikido technique.

Arguably people with higher ability would be less, and perhaps not at all, reliant upon a committed attack and would be better able to deal with variations in the waza, than those with lesser skill.

In the end, we ultimately go back to paraphrasing the idea that, "Aikido works, your aikido may not, but aikido works"...

You can possess the desire and the intent to attack, but lack the ability.

You can have the ability, but lack the motivation and/or intent.

the third criteria is that you must implement it in some way.

if any of the above criteria are lacking...then you have no attack.

Aikido would also be concerned with the intent and ability...but maybe NOT the implementation. That is, we can present such a presence and strength in intent and ability, that the person does not attack because they fear reprisal.

While this may not be deemed as physical aikido, I believe it is, because you have established a physical presence through intent and ability.

Another alternative we have is influence through compassion. We can diffuse conflict through resolving situations through compassion and understanding in many cases.

However, if this were possible in every situation, we would have no need for physical aikido, or the need to practice martial arts. The ability and intent to influence things physically can buy us the time and space we need to use compassion.

I am getting off into the etheral now.

The question seems to be dealing with the direct physicality or superfical aspects of aikido....so on that note, I'd say YES aikido is 100% dependent on a committed attack....that is, you must possess the INTENT, ABILITY, and IMPLEMENT the action in order to have movement or a opposite response. Otherwise, we simply have people staring at one another, or one person responding to something that warrants no response.

However, perception is really the key to things....if one PERCIEVES, even erroneously that an attack is committed...even if it is NOT...that is all that is really necessary.

Practicing aikido and perfecting it hopefully reduces this dissonnace allowing us to see what is really there! (the Truth).

The question isn't "how reliable", but rather "how reliant". In other words, how much does aikido rely on committed attacks to be effective? If an aikidoka is not given a committed attack, can he still execute effective aikido?